Below the 17 recommendations of the team have been listed in two sections. The first deals with organisatio nal issues. The second concerns programmatic topics.
Overall recommendations on IMS’ Organisational Setup
1. Clarify IMS’ organisational structure. IMS should develop a policy document that describes IMS’ organisational structure of IMS and that records all important procedural principles of the Association. This document should also define the role and responsibility of the General Assembly, the Board of Directors, the Advisory Council (if applicable) and the Executive Director. It should also present clear policies regarding criteria for the composition of the General Assembly and the Board, as well as the selection and rotation policies for each.
2. Define processes for dealing with conflict of interest issues. IMS should develop a working definition of conflict of interest and put in place procedures for dealing with conflict of interest issues when they arise. We recommend that a small committee made up of the IMS Chair and one or two other board members serve as the decision- making body whenever a conflict of interest issue should arise. This will absolve the Executive Director from taking responsibility for decisions on such matters. Decisions taken by this committee should be recorded and signed by the IMS Chair.
3. Improve communication with board members. In between meetings, board members should receive short notices on upcoming interventions, assessment missions or other IMS activities in order for them to be able to comment and provide input before an activity is undertaken.
4. Improve record keeping of the organisation’s decisions. Minute taking should become an administrative responsibility and accurately describe decisions that are taken at meetings. Minutes from the previous meeting should be reviewed at each board meeting, amendments noted, and signed off by the IMS Chair.
5. Hire additional programme and administrative staff. The Executive Director should be released from some of his programme responsibilities in order to take on a more “strategic thinking“ role within the organisation.
A programme officer, recruited on the basis of an open and international competition, should be hired in the very near future. This position should include a half-time evaluation/impact assessment function. Additional secretarial and bookkeeping support should also be recruited in the near future.
6. Develop detailed job descriptions. Detailed job descriptions should be prepared for all staff members.
Overall recommendations on Programmatic Issues
7. Second phase. The second phase of IMS should be extended to a 3 –5 years period.
8. Redefine and raise the ceiling for funding. There should be increased funding for IMS in order for the organisation to be able to (a) raise the funding for certain select projects, and (b) expand certain select projects into a medium-term framework, and (c) in certain cases enter a second phase of special projects.
9. Design a project management cycle. IMS might consider separating its interventions into a planning and an implementation phase in order to be able to commit larger amounts of funds to interventions that require them. A guideline for expenditure could be set for a planning phase, which usually includes assessments missions, and for a first and any subsequent phases of interventions.
10. Strategic planning. An annual strategic planning session, aided by an external facilitator, should be held once a year or every two years, as needed. Such a meeting should be held over several days and include board members, staff and selected IMS consultants and other relevant resource persons.
11. Improve evaluation procedures. As much as possible, IMS should work evaluation mechanisms into its projects and, when necessary, provide for an external evaluation process. Evaluation tools will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. If IMS is to take evaluation seriously, it will have to dedicate resources to it.
12. Training partners. IMS needs to follow up their training partners, particularly the international training partners to whom they outsource training assignments. Use local partners more, couple international and local training expertise. Ask for proper training plans before the workshop is being implemented.
13. Criteria for interventions. IMS needs to re-examine and refine its criteria for interventions and its definitions of stages of conflict. As part of a learning exercise, IMS should try to assess which types of intervention work best under which type of circumstances, i.e. conflict phase (escalation phase, armed conflict, reduction phase).
14. Create a platform for emergency assistance/safety mechanisms. IMS should take a lead in bringing together organisations that manage emergency assistance funds or are involved in safety issues (safety training, safe havens etc.) in order to improve their coordination and develop overall strategies for this area of work.
15. Initiate a working group on conflict conscious journalism and peace building media projects. IMS could bring together groups working on conflict
conscious reporting and peace building media projects in order to discuss methodologies and evaluation issues. The latter has been identified by some practitioners as an area in serious need of development.
16. Documentation of activities. Documents should more consistently state its author. The origination of the intervention should be more clearly stipulated along with the objective for an intervention.
17. Greater cooperation with organisations involved with conflict analysis. IMS’s work would benefit from greater cooperation with peace and conflict research institutes as well as governmental bodies in order to sharpen their analysis and methodologies in conflict situations and, in the longer term, strengthen the choices of their activities in overt armed conflict areas. The question of the role of media in peace building exercises is complex, and IMS should consider working out indicators for how media and media support initiatives might contribute to peace building
7 List of select documents consulted
Allen, Tim & Seaton, Jean: The Media in Conflict. War Reporting and Representations of Ethnic Violence. Zed Books. 1999
Benthall, Jonathan: Disasters, Relief, and the Media. I.B. Tauris. 1993.
Bhattarai, Binod: Covering the Crisis. A content analysis of six Nepali broadsheet newspapers during state of emergency in Nepal. Center for Investigative Journalism, Himal Association, Kathmandu, March 2003.
Conducting Conflict Assessment: Guidance Notes. DFID 2002.
Doucet, Ian (ed): Thinking about Conflict. Resource Pack for Conflict Transformation International Alert.
Howard, Ross: An Operational Framework for Media and Peacbuilding. IMPACS.
2001
Howard, Ross: Conflict Sensitive Journalism. IMPACS. IMS. 2003.
IMS Project Documents related to planning, reporting and interventions. In relation to the overall IMS strategies particularly: Helping Media Affected by Conflict, IMS Intervention Processes
Liberia. Human Rights Violations. 1997 – 2002. Media Foundation for West Africa.
2002.
Lund, Michael: “Media as an Instrument for Managing Conflicts and Building Peace – When is it Most Effective?” Outline of paper presented at workshop sponsored by Swisspeace, June 25, 2002.
Nyheim, David, Leonhardt, Manuela, Gailgals, Cynthia: Development in Conflict. A Seven Step Tool for Planners.
Ofstad, Arve: “Countries in Violent Conflict and Aid Strategies. The Case of Sri Lanka”. World Development, vol. 30, no 2, 2002.
Report on Media and Peacebuilding. Concepts, Actors and Challenges (2002) from the Swiss Peace Foundation
The Role of the Media in Conflict Prevention and Peace Building. The Netherlands Association of Journalists. The Hague, 20 February 2002.
Thompson, Mark and Price, Monroe E.: “Intervention, media and Human Rights”.
Survival, vol. 45. no 1, spring 2003.
Thompson, Mark: “Notes for Paris Talk ”.
Thompson, Mark: “Remarks in Bern, 25 June 2002.
Thompson. Mark: Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, University of Luton Press .1999
Working with the Media in Conflicts and Other Emergencies. DFID, August 2000
8 Annexes
1 Terms of reference 2 Inception note 3 People interviewed 4 List of IMS partners 5 Statistical tables
6 Spreadsheet summary of classifications (separate file attached)
7 Classification schemes (separate file attached)
Annex 1 – Terms of Reference
Copenhagen, 20 January 2003 J.No: FRESTA, 5.X.2-11.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIA SUPPORT
1. Background
In 2001, a preparatory group of Danish actors involved in international media issues – prominent Danish Journalists and representatives of the Danish School of Journalism, the Danish Union of Journalists, Baltic Media Centre and the Danish Centre for Human Rights –established the new international independent NGO International Media Support (IMS) in co-operation with international media stakeholders.
IMS was established as a response to a recognized need for an emergency mechanism, which could channel observed needs of media in potential or actual conflict areas into short-term, timely and effective action. The overall objective of the IMS is stated in the project document of April 2001 as: “Peace, stability, democracy and freedom of expression and pluralism of the press in conflict and conflict threatened areas enhanced through emergency assistance to media practitioners/journalists and media institutions/associations in situations of potential or manifest conflict”. Important aspects of the work of IMS comprise interaction with other international media actors in its activities and a long-term perspective in the short-term interventions.
The IMS initiative was based on a number of observations and assumptions regarding media and violent conflicts. Thus, the IMS project proposal of 30 April 2001 observes that restrictions on the editorial freedom of the press, including suppression of freedom of expression and the emergence of conflict- inciting journalism, is often among the first signs of an escalating conflict. Furthermore, it assumes, that media can play not only a negative, conflict- igniting role but also a positive, countering and constructive role in situations of latent or manifest violent conflict. As such media support activities should form an integral part of any conflict prevention and peace building effort.
The need for an emergency mechanism was discussed and confirmed at an international conference on emergency media assistance in Copenhagen in January 2001. A broad group of Danish, international and regional media organisations were present at the conference.
For the pilot phase 2001-2003, IMS receives Danida-support and FRESTA-support at the amount of 11.5 mill. DKK, cf. the appropriation docume nt (aktstykke) no. 221 of 15 May 2001). This support can be viewed as initial funding, enabling IMS to gradually seek other additional sources of funding.
It is stipulated in the appropriation document that an external evaluation of the pilot phase should be carried out in the beginning of 2003 with a view to creating a basis for a renewed appropriation to the IMS project. Consequently, the evaluation will form an integral part of the process of establishing the basis for informed decisions regarding the future of IMS (next project phase and funding). As a consequence hereof, the drafting and completion of the IMS project document for the next project phase is also expected closely interrelated with the evaluation process.
As the IMS pilot phase ends in the summer 2003, the evaluation report should at the latest be available by 1 May 2003.
2. Objectives
The main objectives are to obtain an assessment of the quality of the performance of IMS, primarily understood as the relevance and the effectiveness of the activities undertaken by IMS through its pilot phase 2001-2003, and to obtain recommendations regarding the mandate, the networking and the activities.
3. Scope of work and main issues of the evaluation
The evaluation should address both general and specific aspects of the performance of IMS and of its activities. Three main issues are identified as subjects for the evaluation in order to fulfil the objectives of the evaluation. The evaluation team should carry out the evaluation with due attention to the five evaluation criteria outlined in Evaluation Guidelines, Danida, February 1999 – relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability – yet with main emphasis on the first two criteria.
The evaluation should comprise but not necessarily be limited to the following issues:
1) Overall approach of IMS in accordance with its mandate.
2) Organisational capacity of IMS and method development
3) The operational arm: Performance of specific media assistance activities 1. Overall approach of IMS in accordance with its mandate
IMS was established as a new initiative mandated to fill a specific gap within the international field of media assistance to local media in potential or actual violent conflict areas and to interact in its activities with other local, regional and international media organisations. Furthermore, the project document emphasise “that the success of IMS will be determined by its ability to operate and in practice prove its uniqueness” (p.17). Against this background, the first evaluation of IMS should address the relevance and timeliness of the overall approach of IMS. Key aspects include, but are not limited to the following:
- How does IMS manage to prioritise its resources and focus its range of actions in accordance with its specific mandate? This includes which considerations the selected conflict areas for intervention are based on.
- The IMS role on the international media (assistance) community: To what degree and how does IMS interact and network with other international organisatio ns/actors in the institutional context of "international media assistance". Important actors are obviously other international and Danish media NGOs and institutions including both media monitoring and media development organisations. The latter should oft en be taking over from the short-term IMS interventions. Key questions: the comparative advantages of IMS, IMS ability to attract partners for action, synergy of actions in partnerships, etc.
- The interaction of IMS with regional and international governmental organisations, such as the EU and UN, e.g. use of information resources for selecting ‘conflict areas’ of particular relevance for IMS intervention and mobilisation of additional human and financial resources from the international organisations. .
- A final aspect is how IMS interacts with donors, incl. the Danish MFA (FRESTA, Danida) and the mobilisation of other donors?
2. Organisational capacity of IMS and method development
The evaluation should touch upon issues of organisational capacity – while however bearing the short life span of IMS in mind – and of method development, e.g. the development of methods in relation experiences gained.
Key aspects comprises:
- The performance of and working relationship of the IMS Secretariat and the IMS board? This aspect should also reflect on the appropriateness of the internal division of labour in the organisation/ the roles of the Secretariat and the board as well as their access to and legitimacy vis-à-vis key people at various levels in other organisations.
- The role of the annual international advisory board meeting and the membership structure in relation to interaction between IMS and the advisory board.
- The selection, development and application of process tools and specific IMS tools in light of lessons learned.
3. The operational arm: Performance of specific media assistance activities
The evaluation should examine a number of country or region specific interventions with a view to assess the relevance and value of the activities and the relationship with local media in the conflict area, the co-operation with other international media organisations and international organisations, and regarding the impact of the activities.
Key aspects of this issue include but are not limited to:
- The relevance of the activity carried out in relation to the political context in the conflict area.
- The relevance of the specific short-term IMS intervention with regard to the long-term strategic perspective, i.e. securing a long time-perspective in the short-term IMS activity.
- The ability of IMS to identify local, regional or international actors/partners who can take over from/ follow- up to the short-term IMS activity. This and the abovementioned aspect would be expected to be crucial features of the sustainability of the in country activities of IMS.
- A fourth aspect is how and to what extent IMS interact/interrelate to other international media actors with activities in the specific conflict area and – to the extent possible or feasible – with other selected international actors implementing conflict prevention/ peace building activities in the conflict area.
4. Method of work
Due to the process-oriented nature of conflict prevention and peace building interventions, into which category the media assistance activities of IMS falls, the evaluation should focus primarily on the processes of work of IMS, entailing a focus on qualitative dimensions rather than on quantitative issues. The main method employed will be that of inter-subjective validation, including substantive dialogues and interviews with stakeholders – local and regional actors in conflict areas, Danish, regional and international media organisations and partners. The detailed outline of methodology and the selection of case studies to be undertaken will be established by the team and presented in the inception note (ref. below).
- Consult with IMS and the Danish MFA in selecting the relevant organisations and country studies. For this purpose, an inception meeting with the evaluation team the Danish MFA and the IMS-staff will be held on the 31 January 2003.
At the meeting the methods and choices of issues to be covered by the evaluation, including the country studies should be endorsed . The evaluation team should prepare a brief inception note (1-3 pages) based on the discussions and conclusions of the meeting.
- Study the project document, the activity reports, conference reports and other relevant material prepared by the IMS and IMS consultants.
- Dialogue with a representative number of the advisory board members and partner organisations and journalists. A meeting/ seminar, which could bring a number (10-15) of such actors together and give them a chance to discuss with the team the subject matter/ IMS, should be held in Copenhagen.
- Consult with selected partner organisations and independent consultants assisting IMS in conducting a specific activity. Partners/ consultants, who have worked in the countries selected for a visit by the team, should be included in this group.
- Select information from other relevant Danish, regional and international media actors in the media field on their view of IMS and its activities.
- Visit three to five countries and carry out a field study of IMS interventions.
The case studies should represent different conflict phases (immediate pre-violent conflict phase, manifest pre-violent conflict phase; post-ceasefire/peace agreement phase), different geographical regions (Africa, Asia, Europe) and different types of intervention with different degrees of success, i.e. a weaker and a stronger project. If the lower number of case studies is carried out, it could be considered to hold a workshop with a representative of a local implementing organisation and of the international/external partner organisation, which assisted in carrying out the activity, the IMS and the team.
5. Reporting/ Outputs
The evaluation team shall prepare the outputs stated below. All reports should be made available to major stakeholders and approved by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The reports should be produced in English.
- Inception note. A brief inception note (1-3 pages) should be delivered to the Danish MFA no later than one week after the inception meeting.
- Draft evaluation report. A draft report should be submitted to the Danish MFA no later than 11 April. The Danish MFA will circulate the draft report to IMS for their comments.
- Final evaluation report. The final report should be submitted to the Danish MFA for approval no later than 30 April 2003. The final report will be distributed to IMS, IMS partners and other major stakeholders, and also be available to the general public on request.
6. Composition of team
The evaluation will require a balanced team, comprising consultants with expertise within evaluation, the media sector, and emergency and/or development assistance to the geographical regions, where IMS operates.
The evaluation will require a balanced team, comprising consultants with expertise within evaluation, the media sector, and emergency and/or development assistance to the geographical regions, where IMS operates.